Menu
SUBSCRIBE
SUBSCRIBE
Menu

Critical Infrastructure

Teal light streaks racing down a digital tunnel, on BSA's plan to give defenders first use of AI cybersecurity models

BSA Proposes Giving Cyber Defenders Early Access to Powerful AI Models

, , , , , , , , ,

Qualified organizations would use the models to find and fix security flaws before those capabilities become broadly available.

 

The Business Software Alliance (BSA), an enterprise software trade group, proposed giving trusted cybersecurity organizations early access to powerful AI models before releasing them more widely.

Under the proposal, governments, AI developers, and cybersecurity organizations would form a voluntary partnership to oversee these phased releases. BSA’s announcement did not name a government body to run the partnership, any AI developer that had agreed to participate, or a timetable for creating it.

Defenders would get a head start

The proposal would apply to the most powerful AI cybersecurity models, which BSA said can find security flaws, determine which are most urgent, and exploit them with limited human direction. BSA cited GPT-6 Astra and Mythos as examples but did not say exactly how capable a model would need to be to qualify for the program.

BSA said the same capabilities can help defenders identify weaknesses more quickly or help attackers exploit them. Its proposal would give selected defenders time to locate vulnerabilities and coordinate fixes before attackers gain broad access to the models.

The early users would include cybersecurity providers, software companies, critical infrastructure operators, and organizations working to secure widely used open-source software. BSA also wants to deploy these capabilities more broadly through security platforms that organizations already use. The proposal says the partnership should eventually support both organizations protecting their own systems and providers protecting their customers, but it does not explain how that wider rollout would work.

BSA sets tests for early access

Organizations would need more than cybersecurity experience to qualify. BSA said applicants should show that they have followed applicable laws and accepted practices for reporting and fixing security flaws. The partnership would also examine whether they have the people and resources to use the models effectively and whether their work protects critical infrastructure or widely used technologies. BSA did not say what evidence applicants would need to provide. 

Applicants would also need to show that they could prevent unauthorized access to the models. They would have to disclose who owns or controls the organization and identify any other parties with substantial influence. The partnership would also consider whether the organization has ties to a country of concern that could make granting access risky.

Priority access would be temporary

The proposed partnership would first decide which AI models are powerful enough to require a phased release. Most AI security tools would remain outside the program because they do not materially expand what cybersecurity teams can already do.

The restricted-release period would end once similar models became widely available or the security risks no longer justified limiting access. BSA said participants should know the expected length of the early-access period, but its proposal does not set a maximum duration.

The full proposal also calls for clear application rules and explanations when an organization is denied access. It does not specify who would make those decisions or what steps governments and AI developers will take next to establish the partnership.

Abstract digital network representing organizations working together on a collective cyber defense effort.

More Than 150 Organizations Call for AI Cyber Defense Surge

, , , , , , , , ,

The coalition says hospitals, water utilities, local governments, and other essential services should receive AI security tools, funding, and hands-on support first.

 

More than 150 organizations called for a global surge in cyber defense, warning that they expect AI-driven attacks to become more widespread and sophisticated within months.

The open letter’s signatories include OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, major cybersecurity companies, banks, technology providers, and consulting firms.

The letter outlines a broad, shared responsibility for businesses, governments, cybersecurity companies, technology partners, and major AI developers. It does not specify funding amounts, deadlines, or how much support individual organizations will provide.

The signatories did not cite evidence supporting their prediction that AI-powered attacks will become much more capable and widespread within months. They said existing security weaknesses, such as unpatched software and weak access controls, leave businesses and public services exposed as AI gives attackers more powerful tools.

Essential services would receive help first

The coalition called for hospitals, water utilities, local governments, and other essential services with limited security budgets to receive early support.

They call for governments to fund cyber defense for these organizations and expand programs that permit trusted security providers to test their systems. Governments should also coordinate the sharing of information about attacks and help organizations respond and recover.

The letter called on major AI companies to provide access to powerful models, funding, training, and hands-on assistance. Cybersecurity companies and technology providers should help essential-service operators deploy AI security tools, repair weaknesses, and verify that the repairs work.

These are proposed actions, not commitments that the signatories have agreed to fund or complete.

Businesses are told to treat cyber defense as urgent

The letter called on every organization to make cyber defense an immediate leadership priority and address its highest-risk weaknesses.

Companies should strengthen security standards for the software they buy, build, and use, including code produced with AI, according to the letter. They should also limit people and software to the access they need, strengthen authentication, and use multiple layers of protection.

The coalition said companies can use lower-cost AI models to check more systems for weaknesses and reserve the most powerful models for harder security problems. When essential systems cannot be patched without interrupting operations, organizations should use other safeguards and verify that those protections work.

Technology providers would share tools and attack information

The letter calls for cybersecurity companies and technology providers to continuously test whether their defenses can withstand attacks using increasingly capable AI models.

They should also share information about attacks, tested response plans, and verified repairs so that work completed by one organization can help protect others.

The letter called on major AI developers to build tools that make AI systems easier to monitor. It also said companies should be able to identify AI agents operating in their systems, review what those agents did, and determine who authorized their actions.

OpenAI is accepting applications from additional organizations that want to add their names to the letter. Submissions require approval, and accepted organizations will be listed by name.

Red and blue cutaway illustration of a data center beside power lines, on AI critical infrastructure designation

Advocacy Group Asks The President To Designate AI As Critical Infrastructure

, , , , , , , , ,

A critical infrastructure designation would give AI companies 72 hours to report a cyberattack, put their data centers under federal security standards, and name the firms the government defends first.

 

Key Takeaways

  • Americans for Responsible Innovation (ARI) asked the President to add AI to the critical infrastructure list, which already covers power, water, banking, and hospitals.
  • A 2022 law requires critical infrastructure companies to report cyberattacks within 72 hours, and a designation would extend that duty to AI companies. The law is not in force for anyone yet because CISA has not yet written the regulation that puts it into effect.
  • ARI says the need for critical infrastructure designation is urgent as adversaries are already attacking AI infrastructure.
    • ARI cited recent Iranian drone strikes that destroyed two Amazon data centers in the United Arab Emirates as proof.

 

Americans for Responsible Innovation, a Washington nonprofit that lobbies on technology policy, published a report on August 20 asking the President to add AI to the federal critical infrastructure list. Sixteen sectors sit on that list today.

ARI recommends including in the designation companies that build and train AI models, the data centers powering them, AI chip designers and manufacturers, and the platforms selling access. A critical infrastructure designation puts one federal agency in charge of the sector, requires its companies to report attacks, and ensures the government tells those companies what it knows about threats aimed at them.

Attacks on AI infrastructure have already done damage

ARI cites two attacks as examples of the need for designation. On March 1, Iran flew drones into two Amazon Web Services data centers in the United Arab Emirates, setting fires and cutting power. Banking and food delivery apps across the UAE stopped working, and Amazon’s status page still showed problems eleven days later.

The previous July, someone offered a routine code contribution to the public repository behind Amazon Q Developer, a coding assistant used inside a programmer’s editor. Amazon merged it, and a badly protected credential in its build system handed the contributor administrator access. They planted an instruction in the next official release telling the assistant to wipe the computer it ran on and delete the customer’s cloud account. Amazon published that release to the marketplace, where the assistant was downloaded more than 964,000 times. The instruction never ran, because whoever wrote it made a syntax error.

ARI says one corrupted model could damage many industries at once

AI now runs inside operations across finance, health care, energy, and government. Those companies mostly build their own AI tools, but nearly all of those tools sit on a small number of underlying models, running in data centers owned by a handful of cloud companies.

That is the risk ARI describes. An attacker who corrupts one widely used model does not damage one company. The corruption travels into everything built on that model.

This kind of attack is hard to notice. An AI system produces different output every time it runs, so a tampered one keeps answering and looks like it is working long after its answers stopped being reliable. And currently no rule requires the companies building those models to meet a security standard or disclose a breach, so the businesses running on them cannot spot the problem themselves, and nobody has to tell them. The government cannot see it either.

A designation would assign one federal agency to the sector, set security standards those companies must meet, and require them to report attacks, so a warning reaches the businesses downstream.

“AI systems are becoming increasingly integrated across industries, including health care, finance, and manufacturing, and without formal national security standards, an attack on these systems could lead to the incapacitation of these sectors at once,” said ARI policy analyst Jessica Maksimov, who wrote the report with Terrence Kelly.

AI companies would get 72 hours to report an attack

The designation would put AI companies under the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022, which gives companies in listed sectors 72 hours to tell the government they were attacked. AI companies currently have no federal reporting duty.

That requirement is not in force for anyone. A law of this kind takes effect only once the responsible agency writes the regulation that carries it out, and CISA, the federal cybersecurity agency, has missed its deadlines to do so. It now expects to publish this fall.

CISA and the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI), the federal office that writes AI security guidance, would then publish security standards for AI data centers. ARI wants Congress to fund a CISA team to audit them.

A short list of AI companies would get government attention first

The agency would name the systemically important AI companies whose failure would do the country the most damage. The report says government protection, security requirements, and help reducing risk should start with these companies ahead of everyone else in the sector.

The last two sectors that asked were turned down

In 2024, the President declined to label space systems or the bioeconomy, meaning goods made from biological processes, as critical infrastructure. Officials said space systems were already spread across other sectors on the list, and that the bioeconomy’s risks were not sufficiently different from the risks those sectors already cover.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks at a lectern for an article about California’s AI cyber defense program.

California Creates AI Cyber Defense Program for Critical Infrastructure

, , , , , , , ,

The state will give local governments and operators in energy, water, and transportation access to AI-assisted cyber defense capabilities.

 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom directed his administration to establish an AI cyber defense program within the California Cybersecurity Integration Center (Cal-CSIC). The program will use AI to find security weaknesses, strengthen networks, and help respond to cyberattacks. 

The program is intended to support state agencies and expand advanced cybersecurity capabilities to local governments and critical infrastructure operators.

New Program Adds AI to California’s Existing Cyber Support

Cal-CSIC already shares information about cyber threats and coordinates incident response with state and local agencies, utilities, and other public and private organizations.

The new program will add AI-assisted cybersecurity defenses, including vulnerability detection, network protection, and incident response, to that work.

Newsom also directed Cal-CSIC to expand access for local governments and critical infrastructure operators to advanced state cybersecurity capabilities, including AI-assisted defenses. The announcement names water, power, transportation, and emergency communications among the services the directive is intended to protect.

Caroline Thomas Jacobs, Director of the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, said, “This new program will help Cal OES and our partners detect threats sooner, share information more efficiently, strengthen defenses, and respond faster, helping keep these critical services safe and reliable for communities across California.”

Separately, every state agency must appoint an AI Cybersecurity Officer. The announcement does not specify the scope of responsibility of these newly created roles.

The new actions build on Cal-Secure 2.0, California’s existing cybersecurity roadmap for state agencies. That roadmap calls for greater use of AI-enabled security tools and stronger coordination across state government.

Mobile robot with sensors illustrating the FCC ban on foreign-produced mobile robots over AI security risks.

FCC Expands Foreign Hardware Ban Over AI Security Risks

, , , , , , , , ,

The restriction blocks new foreign-produced mobile robots and connected power inverters unless they receive a national security exemption.

 

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) barred new foreign-produced mobile robots from entering the U.S. market, targeting security risks created by AI-powered machines that can collect data, interpret their surroundings, and move without direct human control.

The FCC did not limit the restriction to robots marketed as AI-powered. Instead, it covers foreign-produced mobile robots whose sensors, connectivity, and software allow them to navigate or move autonomously, collect data, or receive remote commands.

The FCC also restricted foreign-produced connected power inverters, which help manage electricity in power systems supporting, among other things, AI data centers and can create remote access points into those systems. 

The action applies only to new models. Foreign equipment authorized before July 28 can remain on the market.

Ban centers on AI robot risks

AI-powered mobile robots can use cameras, sensors and connected software to understand their surroundings and operate away from direct human supervision. Federal security agencies warned that compromised robots could collect sensitive information or allow an attacker to control their movement.

The FCC did not limit the restriction to products marketed as AI-powered. It covers connected mobile ground robots weighing more than 4.4 pounds that can sense their surroundings and operate away from a human supervisor. Their software may use AI or machine learning to interpret sensor information, control movement, collect data, or receive remote commands.

Each new covered foreign-produced model must receive federal security approval before it can seek FCC authorization. That creates a new barrier for Chinese and other foreign robotics manufacturers. Approval of an earlier model does not automatically clear later models.

Power inverters connect ban to AI infrastructure

The restriction also covers connected power inverters, used in managing electricity in systems that support AI data centers, among other power systems.

Federal security agencies warned that compromised inverters could interrupt electricity, provide remote access to connected systems, or expose sensitive information. The FCC added inverters and mobile robots to its Covered List after a White House-convened group of national security agencies determined that the devices could threaten critical infrastructure and U.S. security.

Ban is on new models only

The restriction applies only to new models. Companies and consumers can continue using previously purchased devices, and retailers can keep selling foreign-produced models the FCC authorized before July 28.

A separate FCC waiver allows previously authorized robots and power inverters to continue receiving software, firmware and security updates until at least Jan. 1, 2029. Federal purchases and use are also unaffected.

 

Foreign manufacturers can seek an exemption. The U.S. Department of Defense can approve covered robots or power inverters, while the Department of Homeland Security can also approve inverters. Manufacturers that receive approval can then apply for FCC authorization.

The White House South Lawn and fountain on a clear day, site of the Gold Eagle AI cyber defense announcement

White House Launches Gold Eagle To Coordinate AI-Driven Cyber Defense

, , , , , , , ,

The new initiative will connect AI developers, software companies, and critical infrastructure operators to identify and patch vulnerabilities before attackers can exploit them.

 

The White House launched a cybersecurity initiative called Gold Eagle to help companies and government agencies share information about software vulnerabilities discovered by advanced AI systems.

Announced Tuesday, the program brings together federal agencies, AI developers, and operators of critical infrastructure. The administration said Gold Eagle has already begun collecting and prioritizing vulnerability reports and coordinating responses.

Gold Eagle was created under President Trump’s June 2 executive order, “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” According to the White House, the initiative is intended to reduce duplicate scanning efforts and speed up the process of getting vulnerability information to the organizations responsible for fixing the flaws.

The effort is led by the White House, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security through the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Department of Defense. Officials said the participating organizations will coordinate responses to vulnerabilities identified by increasingly capable AI systems.

The White House did not identify the companies participating in Gold Eagle.

European Union flags flying outside the European Commission building, marking the EU Action Plan on AI Cybersecurity

EU Launches Cybersecurity Plan For Advanced AI Threats

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Commission says advanced AI could help attackers find weaknesses and automate cyberattacks, forcing Europe to rethink how it tests and defends critical systems.

 

The European Commission released a new Action Plan on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence, warning that advanced AI could make cyberattacks faster, larger, and easier to automate.

The plan treats advanced AI as both a cybersecurity tool and a cybersecurity risk. The Commission said AI can help detect vulnerabilities, prevent attacks and protect critical infrastructure. But it also warned that malicious actors can use the same technology to find weaknesses, automate attacks and carry out cyber operations at greater speed and scale.

“AI is transforming the meaning of cybersecurity. And we must keep pace,” said Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy. She said the goal is to turn advanced AI into a tool for stronger cyber defense while limiting its use by attackers.

 

What the plan does

The plan lays out several steps for managing advanced AI in cybersecurity.

First, the Commission said it will create a process for independent experts to test advanced AI models before they enter the EU market, giving the AI Office outside assessments of what those models can do and what risks they may create.

Second, the Commission said it will work with the European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA), the EU’s cybersecurity agency, to set rules for giving trusted public agencies, researchers and companies controlled access to advanced AI systems for cybersecurity testing and defense.

Third, ENISA and the Commission’s Joint Research Centre will create a secure testing platform for AI cybersecurity tools. The platform will use simulated environments so organizations can test AI systems safely before using them in sensitive settings.

The Commission said the testing effort will focus on critical sectors, including energy, transport, health, finance, and public administration.

 

Critical infrastructure

The plan also tells organizations not to treat AI as a substitute for basic cybersecurity. The Commission said companies and public agencies should first strengthen core defenses, including risk management, secure system design, and incident response.

Once those basics are in place, the Commission said organizations should use available AI tools, including open-source models where appropriate, to identify software weaknesses more quickly and improve cyber defense.

The European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) will support that work with guidance and best practices. The Commission also said ENISA will work to secure critical open-source software, though it did not provide details on what that will entail.

 

Europe’s AI cyber capacity

The Commission said it will launch an EU Grand Challenge on AI for cybersecurity, a competition-style program meant to bring companies, researchers and other organizations together to build AI-powered cyber defense tools.

The plan also says Europe will need more computing power, AI infrastructure and investment to build those tools, instead of relying entirely on technology developed elsewhere.

 

The plan builds on existing EU rules, including the AI Act.

Dark blue circuit board with glowing nodes depicting AI-driven cyber crisis, RAND Europe tabletop exercise report

RAND Exercises Find Governments Unprepared for AI-Driven Cyber Crises

, , , , , , , , , , ,

European policymakers concluded governments need clearer crisis thresholds, stronger AI governance, and better cyber preparedness before a major AI-enabled attack occurs.

Governments across Europe are not adequately prepared to respond to an AI-driven cyber crisis, according to a new RAND Europe report based on tabletop exercises involving senior policymakers from Germany, the Netherlands, and France. The report, Insights from table-top exercises in Europe on AI safety and cyber misuse, found that officials struggled to determine when AI-enabled cyberattacks should be treated as a national emergency and identified significant gaps in the governance, technical expertise, and coordination needed to respond effectively.

Developed jointly by RAND Europe, the UK AI Security Institute, and Mila – Quebec AI Institute, the exercises placed participants in a realistic crisis scenario set roughly one year into the future. Policymakers were asked to respond after criminals exploited a government-backed AI model to automate phishing campaigns, identify software vulnerabilities, and launch increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks against businesses, public agencies, and critical infrastructure. RAND based the scenario on risks identified in the 2026 International AI Safety Report rather than speculative future technologies.

Governments struggled to recognize the crisis

One of the report’s most significant findings was that participants struggled to determine when an AI-enabled cyber incident should be treated as a national crisis rather than a routine cybersecurity problem. Without clear criteria for declaring a national crisis, officials spent valuable time debating whether extraordinary government powers or interventions were justified, rather than deciding how to respond. Participants ultimately concluded that governments should establish those thresholds before a crisis occurs rather than trying to define them during an emergency.

Preparedness gaps extended beyond cyber defenses

The uncertainty surrounding the crisis highlighted broader weaknesses in government preparedness. Participants concluded that governments need stronger, independent technical expertise to evaluate advanced AI models rather than relying on information from AI companies. They also said existing institutions often separate AI oversight from cybersecurity, even though the two are becoming increasingly interconnected.

The report also found that many governments lack a clear understanding of how vulnerable critical infrastructure and public systems are to AI-enabled attacks. Participants recommended conducting systematic reviews of national cyber defenses, improving coordination between agencies, and strengthening the ability to assess AI-related risks before a crisis unfolds.

State-backed AI developers create difficult policy choices

Another recurring theme was how national governments should respond when a major cyber crisis implicates a strategically important domestic AI company. In the exercise, the AI model enabling the attacks was a “homegrown” company that received government backing and public support.

Participants debated whether governments should restrict or investigate such a company, or continue working with it as a partner to strengthen national cyber defenses. They also questioned whether existing laws provide governments with sufficient authority to intervene when AI developers disclose uncertainty about potential risks but no laws have been violated.

Open-weight AI adds another layer of risk

The second phase of the exercise introduced an open-weight AI model with advanced cyber capabilities that could be freely downloaded, modified, and redistributed. Unlike the original model, its developer could no longer monitor how it was being used or add new safeguards after release. Participants concluded that this would make it much harder for any single country to prevent misuse.

Because these models can quickly spread across borders, participants said governments would need to work more closely with allies. They called for faster information sharing, stronger coordination among trusted partners, and international frameworks that can respond more quickly than traditional diplomacy during an AI-enabled cyber crisis.

Preparing before the next AI crisis

Rather than focusing on how governments should respond during an AI-enabled cyber emergency, participants emphasized the need to prepare before one occurs.

Among their priorities were:

  • Establishing clear criteria that define when an AI incident becomes a national crisis.
  • Strengthening cyber defenses against AI-enabled attacks.
  • Building independent technical expertise to evaluate advanced AI systems.
  • Improving crisis communications and information sharing.
  • Expanding international coordination and cooperation with AI developers.

Participants said these capabilities would help governments respond more quickly and effectively to future AI-related crises.

RAND said it plans to expand the exercises to additional regions to determine whether governments with different regulatory systems identify similar preparedness challenges and governance needs.

Abstract Earth from space with a digital AI overlay illustrating a Five Eyes warning about frontier AI cyber risks.

Five Eyes Warn Frontier AI Could Enable Major Cyberattacks Within Months

, , , , , , , , , , ,

The cyber agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States said advances in frontier AI may soon increase the speed, scale and sophistication of cyber operations.

The cybersecurity and intelligence agencies of the Five Eyes alliance issued a rare joint statement, warning that frontier AI advances could enable more serious cyberattacks within months, potentially altering the threat landscape faster than many organizations expect.

The statement was released by the leading cyber agencies of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, including organizations such as the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the United Kingdom’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), the Australian Cyber Security Centre (ACSC), and the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS).

According to the agencies, increasingly capable AI models could enable threat actors to conduct cyber operations with greater speed, scale, and sophistication. The agencies warned that advances in frontier AI may reduce the expertise and resources traditionally required to carry out complex cyber activities, potentially placing more powerful capabilities into the hands of a broader range of threat actors.

The Five Eyes called on organizations to take practical steps now to understand their risks, strengthen cybersecurity fundamentals, and ensure leadership is prepared to respond as threats evolve.

The statement also emphasized that responding to AI-enabled cyber risks cannot be treated solely as a technology challenge. The agencies said a “whole-of-organization and whole-of-society response is required,” with leaders across business, government, and critical infrastructure working together to improve resilience.

For organizational leaders, the agencies highlighted several priority actions. Here they are verbatim:

  • Reduce your attack surface: Limit unnecessary system access and external connectivity. Challenge whether systems need to be exposed at all and isolate those that do not.
  • Accelerate patching processes: AI is shortening the time between vulnerability discovery and exploitation. Delays in patching increase risk, especially for operational systems with long update cycles. Prioritize security updates accordingly to manage risks.
  • Address legacy systems: Unsupported systems are easy targets. They are not just technical debt; they are strategic liabilities.
  • Review and strengthen identity and access controls: Limit who can access critical systems. Enforce strong authentication and regularly review permissions.
  • Prepare for incidents before they happen: Test response plans, train and prepare teams, and assume breaches will occur. Focus on fast containment and recovery.

The agencies also encouraged organizations to use AI as part of their defensive strategy, noting that the technology can help improve threat detection, accelerate incident response, and strengthen overall cyber resilience when deployed responsibly.

The Five Eyes agencies concluded by calling on leaders to act now rather than wait for future guidance or major incidents. Their message was that organizations should build resilience before more capable AI systems further compress the timeline between identifying a vulnerability and exploiting it.

Architectural line illustration of the White House accompanying coverage of the Trump AI executive order 2026.

Trump Signs AI Executive Order, Tasks NSA With Classifying Frontier Models by Cyber Risk

, , , , , , , , ,

The order gives CISA 30 days to issue binding cybersecurity directives across all civilian federal agencies and creates a government review process for the most powerful AI models before they ship.

 

On June 2, President Trump signed an executive order that requires the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to issue binding cybersecurity directives to federal agencies within 30 days and directs prosecutors to treat AI-assisted crimes as enforcement priorities.

Companies that build the most powerful AI models now face a new pre-release review process. There is no legal requirement to participate, but government pressure to do so.

 

What federal agencies must do in 30 days

CISA, the federal cybersecurity agency within the Department of Homeland Security, must issue binding operational directives specifying which cybersecurity measures all civilian federal agencies must implement. CISA must also “establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools” for federal agencies and extend access to the most capable AI models to state, local, and private-sector critical infrastructure operators, such as rural hospitals and utilities. 

The Treasury, NSA, and CISA must jointly establish a “vulnerability clearinghouse” within 30 days. The clearinghouse coordinates scanning for software vulnerabilities across federal agency and private-sector systems, validates its findings, and determines which vulnerabilities get patched first. The Defense Department runs the same process for its own systems under the same deadline.

The order also establishes a new government classification, “covered frontier model,” that determines which AI models are sufficiently powerful to warrant special handling before public release.

 

What a “covered frontier model” is, and why the designation matters

A “covered frontier model” is an AI model that the NSA deems to pose significant cyber risk. NSA determines, in consultation with the National Cyber Director and CISA, using a classified benchmarking process that the Treasury, NSA, and CISA must build within 60 days.

Once a model gets that designation, its developer can enter a voluntary government review process. The developer grants the government access to the model for up to 30 days before the public release, with confidentiality and IP protections in place. The government then helps determine which partners receive early access. Developers who go through the process get earlier visibility into how the government reads their model’s risk profile.

The government cannot use this process to block or require approval before an AI model ships. Participation is voluntary. However, developers who decline, will release their most powerful models without a government read on their cyber risk. 

 

Prioritizing AI-assisted crime

The Attorney General must prioritize prosecuting AI-enabled crimes. Three statutes apply: identity fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1028), unauthorized computer access (18 U.S.C. § 1030), and wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343).

The 30-day agency deadlines run through early July. The frontier model benchmarking deadlines run through early August.

 

The executive order comes eight days after the President rejected a planned executive order to create a federal review process for advanced “frontier” AI models before release.